Standing Committee A

[Mr. Humfrey Malins in the Chair]

Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill

Clause 8 - Prohibition of Free Distributions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Caroline Spelman: I want to discuss the general points of the clause that were not brought out by the amendments. As in previous clauses, clause 8, in subsections (6) and (7), allows the Secretary of State to determine through regulations the large part of the Bill that refers to coupons. We discussed earlier how difficult that would be for those who must work with the Bill, because we are, at best, handing over an empty box into which the Government can place the regulations.
 I want to impress on the Minister the need to assist those who must work with the Bill with clear guidance about what is meant by coupons, given that we accept that doing away with coupons is a done deal. We argued that the phrase ``nominal sum'' was too vague, and the Minister agreed to look for another form of words. I hope that she will accept that producers of tobacco products should not be expected to go to court to determine what the law is in this area. The guidance must be clear, and if the Bill is insufficiently clear or could create a loophole, we need to find an alternative form of words. 
 I hope that the Minister has had time to consult with her civil servants so that she may respond to the legitimate inquiries of my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) about loyalty cards. The more I thought about that point, the more important it seemed that we should not leave it to hang in the air. There is probably an easy explanation, but it is an important question, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments.

Kevin Barron: I would not say that the hon. Lady misled the Committee about coupons this morning, but Staffordshire pottery is not the only thing that people can get from the tobacco companies. I thought that I should intervene to say exactly how coupon promotions come into the public domain. I have a Gratis catalogue that was published by Benson and Hedges in 1996. Complaints were made about it to the Advertising Standards Authority, or to the subdivision of the ASA that dealt with cigarettes at the time. It advertises many things, including children's skateboards, helmets, toys and garden tools. Other brands even offer international flights.
 Those promotions are not just little knick-knacks for people to put on their sideboards. Coupons are big business, as the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) pointed out on Second Reading. People may assume that they are simply 
 a bonus that people get for smoking cigarettes and that it is not connected with anything else to do with cigarettes, such as their promotion. It is clear that if people are collecting vouchers, they will stick with a brand, because that is how they get the coupons for children's toys, or whatever. There are no iron lungs in the catalogues, but there are other things that they might find useful at some stage. 
 Some evidence on smoking was published in a report by the Select Committee on Health last June. A qualitative research summary report—``Brand equity check for Benson & Hedges in conjunction with exploration of the Gratis catalogue loyalty scheme''—was prepared for Gallaher by Colquhoun Associates in June 1996, around the time of the objections to the Gratis catalogue on the grounds of what people believed it promoted. Colquhoun Associates looked at the effect of the Gratis catalogue scheme and how it operated at the time. The Select Committee report, appendix 26, says: 
 ``Benson & Hedges sponsorship of Formula One is entirely coherent with expectations and offers the brand many opportunities to capitalise on positive associations. For instance, by sponsoring Formula One respondents claimed it made them believe that Benson & Hedges was a big, major league, very powerful brand with plenty of money. It also lent associations to the brand with young, fast, racy, adult, exciting, aspirational but attainable environments. It was coherent with all that respondents knew of the brand but also extended associative territory to make the brand more youthful, more dynamic and more exciting.'' 
The point is that coupons are not just about getting something back for smoking a particular brand. They aid to the promotion of cigarettes, and clearly lead to wider identification. The difficulty that faces the Committee is how to pull apart advertising and promotion, which are interlinked as they sell positive images about tobacco in our society. That interconnection has been identified in different reports over many years. We must recognise that the coupon scheme, in part defended by the Opposition at one of our earlier sittings, is nothing more than the promotion of cigarettes.

Ian Bruce: I agree that we should not have the specific coupon to which the Government refer. What I pointed out, however, was that ordinary loyalty cards are caught by the clause. Is the hon. Gentleman happy about that, and will he make sure that the loophole that ordinary loyalty cards currently enjoy is not left open for tobacco companies to exploit?

Kevin Barron: The hon. Gentleman is the only Committee member up to now who claims that ordinary loyalty cards will be trapped by the legislation. He clearly knows better than the parliamentary draftsmen and lawyers who have written the legislation: perhaps he is in the wrong job. The Bill is directly targeted at stopping the Gratis catalogue and other methods of promotion, not just by Benson and Hedges, but by many other tobacco companies. Those methods provide more than just little teapots for the sideboard: they do a lot to promote unhealthy tobacco in our society. The Government have recognised that, and I am pleased to support the clause.

Ian Bruce: It is incumbent on critics of a clause or part of a Bill to try to help Ministers, and I hope that the Minister will feel that I am helping her. I pointed out earlier just how faulty the clause is, because it catches something that the Government do not intend to catch.
 I may be able to help the Minister with a little story about my own office when I started up a company for myself in Yorkshire. It was an employment agency, and at the time in question about six people were working for me. Three were occasional smokers, and three were not. We were based in an office about an eighth of the size of this room, with a fairly low ceiling. The non-smokers were somewhat upset about the amount of smoke coming into our lungs. 
 I observed what happened first thing in the morning when my staff arrived. There was always an uncomfortable shuffling, then one young lady working for me would offer the other two young ladies a cigarette. Each would remember from the day before when it was her turn to offer, and each felt a social obligation to do so, as they would if they were treating in a pub. Once they had smoked those cigarettes, the next person in line would think, even if she did not really fancy a cigarette, that the others might want one, and would offer her cigarettes round. 
 That example of giving a cigarette to someone else—and the Bill would not catch this situation, since my employees were not part and parcel of the tobacco trade—provides a big illustration of how giving away free cigarettes is a promotion of cigarettes. There cannot be a cigarette paper between the two sides of the Committee on that. In my office, the six of us sat down to discuss how to reduce smoking in the office. We made a very simple rule, which everyone agreed to. Quite simply, no-one offered anyone else a cigarette. Almost instantaneously, cigarette consumption went down to a quarter of what it had been before, and one of the people gave up smoking. 
 I do not argue that someone in business who invites people to dinner should not give them free cigars at the end, even if that person has nothing to do with the tobacco industry. The Minister might say, ``That bloke Bruce is on to something. Maybe he does understand that there is a route here to reducing peoples' consumption of cigarettes.'' That, after all, is what we intend to do, and someone who works in the tobacco industry tells me that if he offered someone a cigarette in a normal social environment, he would be caught by the clause. He said that to advertise is simply to refer to something, and to give something away is simply a means of doing that. 
 The Minister might consider what she means to do, because the clause creates a rather strange situation. The Minister says that the Bill does not do what I suggest that it does, but at the same time she tries to say that the Conservatives are against reducing the amount of tobacco being smoked. In fact, I certainly want people to reduce their consumption of tobacco.

Ernie Ross: It seems to me that every time the hon. Gentleman stands up, he contradicts himself. In the scenario that he has just outlined, the individuals who had bought the cigarettes gave them freely to each other. There was no gift involved, because they each bought the same number of cigarettes. The hon. Gentleman has merely demonstrated that my hon. Friend the Minister is the right person to be answering for the Government, because the Bill deals with a health issue. When the hon. Gentleman, as the employer responsible for the group, got the six people together, they realised the damage they were doing to each other's health, and stopped smoking.

Ian Bruce: I am not sure that the Committee is any further enlightened by my giving way to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he would like to make a speech himself about how he believes that the clause will help matters.
 Opposition Members are telling the Minister that the clause catches things that she does not intend to catch. Perhaps that will be a good thing, but people ought to know what they are being prevented from doing. The use of loyalty cards is clearly caught, and if the Government do not intend that, I urge the Minister to produce an amendment. She could say that retailers such as W H Smith that provide £5 coupons through a loyalty system could simply print, ``This coupon cannot be exchanged for tobacco.'' Using coupons to buy tobacco products is clearly one of the things that the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) is trying to avoid happening. I accept that the connection between receiving a gift and the purchase of tobacco would be a good link to break. 
 The tobacco industry understands that link, and that is a legitimate concern of the Government. If a father is smoking cigarettes and his child receives toys from the loyalty card, the link may suggest to the child that it is good if the father keeps smoking cigarettes rather than his worrying that if his father continues to smoke and dies, the child will have no money. That is a serious point, which the Government must examine carefully if they are to make sure that the Bill is properly drafted.

Yvette Cooper: I will try to respond to some of the points that have been raised on the clause, although we may also have discussed them during our debates on the amendments. We will examine the wording around ``nominal sum'' but subsection (6)—as part of clause 8, which sets up the regulation-making powers—is important. We are not aware of products and coupons being sold for a nominal sum at the moment, but that would be an obvious and easy way to get around a ban on free distributions. It is for exactly that reason, that we are keen to make sure that we do have a regulation- making power in this area, as we want to prevent future abuses and manoeuvring by the tobacco industry to get around what would otherwise be a ban on free distributions.
 The hon. Member for South Dorset again made a point about credit cards and loyalty cards, and the position is as I set it out earlier. A credit card would not be covered, because a credit card is not a coupon. Nor, in itself, is a loyalty card. The points accumulated on a loyalty card could be interpreted as coupons, because they are redeemable—the loyalty card is not redeemable, but the points may be. The distinction that I made earlier, still applies: the key question is whether the purpose or effect of giving away the product or coupon is to promote a tobacco product? If one receives double points on a loyalty card for buying cigarettes, rather than anything else at Sainsbury's, where particular benefits may apply to the loyalty card, that would provide a specific incentive to buy tobacco products. A particular promotion of tobacco products would be caught by the Bill. If there were a more general incentive to spend more money, in the broader sense, that did not particularly promote tobacco products, then it would not be covered by the Bill. The test is whether or not cigarettes or tobacco products are promoted. 
 I want to clarify our earlier discussion about students, casual workers and others in corporate marquees who have signed on for the day. The phrase, 
``in the course of a business'' 
is intended to refer to an ongoing concern. However, while people are involved in a business, even if temporarily employed, they are covered by the Act. If a student hands out cigars or cigarettes because he or she feels like it, that is clearly not part of a business and is not done in the course of business. However, if students are paid to do so, or if they are taken on for a day as casual labour, they will, unless they have a defence, be caught by the Act. If they knew what they were doing, then they are potentially guilty of an offence. If they did not know, and could not have foreseen, they would have a defence. 
 It is not likely to be standard practice to prosecute the most junior member of a company, but the principle set out in clauses 2 and 3 applies equally here. The Bill includes everyone involved in a chain. If those people know about and are involved in promoting or distributing the tobacco product—or, as in this case, in distributing coupons—and do not have the defence of having been unable to foresee its effect, they may be guilty of an offence. The standard that applies in the clause is the same as that applied in earlier clauses.

Caroline Spelman: I am glad that the Minister has returned to that point, which was left unclear at this morning's sitting. Her explanation is helpful. Does she accept that a group that we have not hitherto thought of alerting to the need to take a fresh look at the matter is the broadcasting corporate entertaining business—which I suspect will not be intimately versed in the details of the Tobacco Advertising Bill, which it would not regard as its core business?

Yvette Cooper: The key issue is whether a tobacco product is being promoted.
 I shall clarify the question of cigars circulating at a dinner party. If a private business man hands out cigars that are paid for as part of corporate entertainment, with a purpose of persuading customers to buy, for example, computer software, but with neither the purpose nor the effect of promoting a tobacco product, that clearly constitutes a defence. The inability to foresee that an action would promote a tobacco product would also constitute a defence. However, the Bill covers a tobacco company that hands out free cigars and cigarettes in order to promote a tobacco product or a company that pays another company to distribute free tobacco products in order to promote a tobacco product, whether they are being promoted to Members of Parliament or to customers at an event. 
 The purpose of the clause is to tackle free distributions of cigarettes—perhaps to students—toys, teapots and other goodies used to promote tobacco products. That is the crunch question: the Bill seeks to prevent the use of free distributions as alternative methods of marketing and promoting cigarettes and smoking. That is the health aim that we are trying to achieve. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 - Prohibition of Sponsorship

Caroline Spelman: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 4, line 24, leave out `or effect'.

Humfrey Malins: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 41, in page 4, line 39, at end insert—
 `(c) that the purpose of what was done was to promote a tobacco product outside the United Kingdom and that the promotion of the product in the United Kingdom was incidental to that purpose and occurred only as a result of the broadcasting or publication by a third party of something in the United Kingdom for a purpose other than the promotion of a tobacco product.'.

Caroline Spelman: We move to a completely different subject, which we discussed only briefly on Second Reading. The problem with the clause—it is a problem that we have encountered before in the Bill—is that it does not give us a clear definition, in this case of sponsorship. A lack of clear definition may cause confusion. The word is used in many different contexts. Hon. Members use it in a parliamentary context when we talk about sponsoring a Bill: indeed, I received a good response from hon. Members on both sides when I sought sponsors for my private Member's Bill on adoption.
 Sponsorship can be used to describe support for an activity, event or organisation in return for something—or not as the case may be. I do not expect anything from hon. Members in return for sponsoring my Bill, except, perhaps, that they may be present on Second Reading. Sponsorship can, but does not necessarily, give rise to an agreement—again, I have no formal agreement with the hon. Members who supported my Bill. The clause is framed in terms of a sponsorship agreement, in which a party to it makes a contribution towards something. That is one definition of sponsorship but it may not cover all aspects of sponsorship. When an agreement is struck the parties usually know what they have agreed to do under that agreement, and that is often, thought not always, confirmed in writing. Under the definition of the sponsorship agreement given in the Bill, it is not clear where any written agreement is needed. That could open a considerable loophole. 
 As far as I can tell, nothing in the Bill will successfully tackle the problem of product placement. Clearly when a film star is asked by a tobacco company to smoke in a film, there may be some form of agreement, but if there is no requirement for that agreement to be in writing, so that it can be confirmed or proven to exist—if, in short, the agreement is verbal—the Bill will open quite a loophole. There is no question that product placement of that kind in films has a big impact on the group that all parties seek to protect—young people. Far more effectively than coupons, bone china mugs and all the other things described earlier, visual images of young peoples' role models who are smoking has a very great impact indeed. 
 I am not convinced that the Government's drafted version of a sponsorship agreement is really logical. People usually know their purpose or whether they are party to an agreement, but they cannot necessarily know the results of entering into an agreement. As drafted, clause 9(1) would create an offence arising out of a result, and that is a difficult concept. I imagine that when a sponsorship agreement is struck between two parties, whether in writing or not, what is in it for the parties concerned is very much left at face value. The full effect of his or her sponsorship may not be spelled out to the individual concerned. In consequence, perhaps, without seeing the detail of the agreement, it may be difficult to judge whether that person should have known what the effect of that sponsorship agreement would be.

Ernie Ross: Following the scandals that have surrounded all types of sponsorship, sports stars and media personalities are not stupid. If they are signing a sponsorship agreement, they have lawyers and agents advising them. They must go into the small print of an agreement, and they must be quite clear about what they are sponsoring. The most recent example in which people discovered that they were sponsoring something that was not acceptable was the manufacture of balls used in football matches. Someone discovered that Adidas was using cheap child labour. Agents are conscious of these things. Surely it is the responsibility of the person who signs the sponsorship to find out what is entailed. That is the Government's responsibility.

Caroline Spelman: The hon. Gentleman's argument is predicated on the fact that something was signed, but it may not always have been signed, since the Bill contains no requirement that it should be. An agreement could be purely verbal. In such a case, it could be very unclear—and very difficult to prove in a court of law what was actually said as part of that agreement.
 My desire is entirely to help the Government. I see a big loophole, and I would be the first to say that when all conventional methods of advertising are shut down, product placement remains an important instrument. As far as I can see, at the moment, we have very little control in this country. Many films are produced out of the United Kingdom. Some of the greatest blockbusters are produced in Hollywood, and are not governed by constraint of the type in the Bill, but they are shown in British cinemas up and down the land and contain strong subliminal images about tobacco and tobacco products. 
 We are often consumed as we look at the Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman characters—and I was sorry to hear today that they are splitting up. Non-smokers are less affected, but it is sometimes possible to watch a film all over again from the perspective of product placement, and it is extraordinary how often a big poster pops up as a backdrop to the superstars. Did they know that they would find themselves standing in front of a socking great advertisement for branded cigarettes? We do not know. Was it part of their agreement to stand in front of it? It is all very unclear and ill-defined. We want to help the Government to deal with this major loophole. There is no doubt that advertising can have a big impact on the young, who are highly susceptible to it. As drafted, however, I doubt whether the clause will be effective in practice. 
 Amendment No. 39 is coupled with amendment No. 41, which deals with a different problem. It is designed to strike a balance on what is achievable in terms of constraining advertising through sponsorship agreements. Under clause 9(1): 
 ``A person who is party to a sponsorship agreement is guilty of an offence'' 
if the purpose or effect of the sponsorship 
``is to promote a tobacco product in the United Kingdom.'' 
That much is clear. What happens, though, when Bernie Ecclestone is sitting in his London headquarters agreeing to a deal with Marlboro to sponsor the Monaco grand prix? If photographs from that meeting appeared in United Kingdom magazines, would it be an offence under the clause? The new subsection makes it clear that sponsorship deals negotiated in the United Kingdom that do not relate to UK events are not covered by the rule when the photographs are incidental and not expressly published for the purpose of tobacco promotion. 
 Surely the Government do not want to drive international businesses out of the country for fear of accidentally committing this offence in connection with overseas events broadcast in the UK. Amendment No. 41 would prevent that. Formula 1 is international business and there is no getting away from it. There are 16 races in the year and if tobacco is to be banned only in this country, its impact on the image transfer from Formula 1 to tobacco—I accept the analysis that links them, particularly with respect to the young—will, frankly, be minimal. That the glamorous image of sport transfers to tobacco products is proven by market research, but—

David Taylor: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Spelman: No, I have just about finished.
 One ban among 16 will have little impact. The amendment is a practical proposal and I hope that the Minister will accept it.

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Lady said that amendment No. 39 was about closing the loophole with respect to product placement in films. However, the amendment would broaden sponsorship and could create a loophole because, while the effect might be to promote a tobacco product, companies could argue that their purpose was rather to sponsor an event. If the effect is clearly to promote a tobacco product, companies should not be allowed to use that argument. That is why clause 9(1) refers to ``purpose or effect''.
 Product placement in films and television programmes was mentioned. Product placement in the vast majority of television series is controlled by existing codes of practice. The placement of tobacco goods in a film, or elsewhere that might not be covered by the codes of practice under television and broadcasting legislation, will be covered by sponsorship and by the clause. An agreement between a broadcaster and a tobacco company to use particular tobacco goods in a film or drama with the intention or effect of promoting that company's brands would be caught by the Bill.

Caroline Spelman: What happens in the event of a foreign film? How would a British Government make sanctions stick on two American parties—an actor and a tobacco company—who had, perhaps only verbally, struck an agreement about product placement? Will we have censorship in our cinemas?

Yvette Cooper: There are two separate questions: is the agreement verbal or written, and is it an international film? First, the Bill does not specify that the sponsorship agreement must be written; it could be a verbal agreement. If we specified that the agreement had to be written, people would simply make oral agreements, because it would be clear that we were providing an obvious opt-out from the ban.
 The second point, about international films, is more difficult, because we do not have extra-territorial jurisdiction on the matter. We do not have the power to prosecute if there is an agreement between a US tobacco company and a Hollywood film for tobacco placement. Distribution and broadcasting of the film in question by persons in the UK would not be caught under clause 9, because no one in the UK, as far as we knew, was party to the sponsorship agreement with which the clause deals. 
 There is a question about the role that the British Board of Film Classification should play. The matter might most properly be pursued with the board, rather than through the Bill, which does not set out extra-territorial jurisdiction on the matter.

Caroline Spelman: If an actor strikes a verbal agreement with a tobacco company, there is nothing in writing and they are challenged as having committed an offence, the defence may be that the actor smoked on screen purely because the character was a smoker and that the purpose was not primarily to promote tobacco. Surely we are about to create an enormous loophole. I am interested to hear what the situation would be with the British Board of Film Classification, because it is important that we relate that issue to the Bill. We must ensure that we do not just create a big loophole.

Yvette Cooper: The Bill would cover a sponsorship agreement between a British film and a British company. Clause 9(2) says:
 ``A sponsorship agreement is an agreement under which a party to it makes a contribution towards something, whether the contribution is in money or takes any other form (for example, the provision of services or of contributions in kind).'' 
I am not clear what the hon. Lady is proposing that would prevent the possibility of an individual, whether an actor or a film director, making a covert deal with a tobacco company that was against the law, that was an offence under this Bill and where they were effectively committing an offence but were not caught doing so. If she has a suggestion as to how it might be possible to amend the Bill to identify more easily situations where that was occurring, then I would look at those proposals. It would be worse to specify that it had to be a written agreement because then we would be encouraging people to avoid making written agreements. Even where there was clear evidence of their having accepted a contribution from a tobacco industry or some benefit from a tobacco industry, we would still not be able to prosecute them under the Bill if we referred only to written agreements. That is why it is right to talk about sponsorship agreements but, of course, if there is a written agreement, it is obviously much easier to find the proof on which to base the prosecution. 
 The hon. Lady asked about international films. This Bill covers who can be prosecuted in the UK. We do not have extra-territorial jurisdiction so that limits what we are able to do with Hollywood films. The BBFC has responsibility for assessing Hollywood films as they come into this country. It is for the BBFC, rather than this Bill, to deal with how we should control foreign films entering the UK.

Peter Luff: I am genuinely interest in this matter. What action can the BBFC take? This is not a Bill to protect minors from the effects of advertising, it is a Bill to ban tobacco advertising. If a film has quite blatant product placement—I think it was a Superman film which had blatant tobacco advertising, with a Marlboro van crashing in one scene—and a large section of the film can be said to constitute an advertisement, is the Minister saying the BBFC should refuse to issue a certificate for that film because it judges it to be too much of an advertisement for tobacco to be shown in a UK cinema?
 Yvette Cooper 
 : That is not a matter for this Bill and not a matter that we should discuss in this Committee. We could have other discussions with the BBFC, particularly about films for children, but those are separate issues. I have anxieties about censorship and about freedom of artistic expression, which I made clear on the Second Reading. The aim of this Bill is not to prevent artistic expression. The hon. Gentleman raises legitimate issues to explore, but they are not covered under the scope of this Bill. 
 I return to an issue that is covered under the scope of this Bill—amendment No. 41, which refers to whether or not, if the purpose is to promote a product outside the UK, somebody could be caught by what was done by a third party incidental to the agreement that resulted in the product being promoted in this country. That is an interesting issue. Let us go through the occasions where this might occur. First, if someone had a sponsorship agreement with an event outside the UK, which was broadcast in the UK, it would not be prevented by this Bill because, as we are likely to discuss when we consider clause 11, this Bill does not cover broadcasting. Secondly, if it were a question of a news report of a particular event that took place abroad, that would not be covered by the Act because we would be talking about news reporting rather than a promotion. 
 If the question is whether a third party publishes a magazine, or puts it on the internet, or publishes promotional material about an event that took place abroad where there was a sponsorship agreement, if the original company could not have foreseen it, or had no reason to suspect, it has a defence under 9(a) and 9(b). The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) is unnecessary. However, it is important that we include anything that could be considered the deliberate promotion of coverage of an event that took place abroad and where the third party might operate in conjunction with the original company or where it could have foreseen that the consequences of their sponsorship agreement abroad would be to promote the tobacco product in this country too.

Caroline Spelman: May I put another example to the Minister? If it continues to be legal to advertise tobacco products on Formula 1 cars, helmets and clothing, what about children's dinky toys? The traditional manufacturer of such toys is Hornby—[Hon. Members: ``Corgi.''] I thank male Members for helping me on that. I was not a great one for such toys myself. How would such toys be regarded? They could carry the logo of the tobacco manufacturer. Are they all to be deleted from the British toy market and to be sold in their true colours only abroad?

Yvette Cooper: If a toy being sold in the country were itself an advertisement for a tobacco product, it would rightly be caught by the Bill. We would all be disturbed by the idea of a Bill that set out to ban tobacco advertising and promotion, with particular concerns about children, but permitted adverts to be splayed all over children's toys. That is a legitimate concern. If that is the kind of thing that the hon. Lady wishes to exclude—

Humfrey Malins: Order. We are dealing with an amendment concerning sponsorship agreements. Although it is permissible to mention other matters in passing, I hope that we can stay within the confines of the amendment before the Committee.

Yvette Cooper: If the purpose is to exclude such promotion because it is incidental, that would reinforce our objection to the amendment. That is exactly the kind of advertising or promotion that should be included.
 The clause is indeed about sponsorship, Mr. Malins, whereas the earlier clauses referred to advertising. Just as when we talked about film, television and other kinds of media promotions, if the film involves blatant advertising of tobacco products, it would be covered by the Bill whether it was made in the UK, the US or any other country. Although the original makers of the film might not be covered by the Bill, because they were in the US and we do not have extra-territorial jurisdiction, the distributors of the film would be covered. We were talking about examples that are not covered explicitly by advertising, but that we are covering by sponsorship. Sponsorship is not covered by the Bill if it is a non-UK film and the distributors are not covered by something that is about sponsorship as opposed to advertising. I hope that that explanation clarifies clause 9 and the amendments.

Caroline Spelman: I am not satisfied that we have dealt adequately with this grey area. I understand the rationale for not insisting that sponsorship agreements are in writing and I accept that it might drive the agreements underground. I suspect that many of them are informal agreements anyway. Their precise effect on the market is probably never discussed in great detail with the parties to the sponsorship agreement. If I am correct in the way that I understand that these things are constructed, I suspect that one party is most interested in the sum of money that it will receive in return for such an agreement.
 I do not feel that we have been left with a clear idea of how effective this clause is likely to be. I am sure the Minister will agree that, in terms of smoking prevalence among young women, the most damage is done by a Kate Moss, for example, strolling down a catwalk smoking a cigarette. Furthermore, if it is a clearly identifiable brand, that increases the level of damage. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) is shaking his head, but I can assure him that market research has shown that young women in particular, who aspire to the kind of figure that Kate Moss has—the opportunity for which has unfortunately long eluded female members of my age—perceive a film or pop star of that status smoking as an indicator to a way towards achieving that perfect shape. We are left with quite a grey area on this point, and one that is quite difficult to clear up, but there is no question but that we shall see a rise in product placement where more conventional types of advertising are closed down. 
 It was certainly not the purpose of our amendment to create a loophole under this whole discussion on sponsorship—quite the reverse. Equally, we are trying to be fair and realistic about what it would be reasonable to expect of the parties to the agreement. It is still quite hard for people to see what the ultimate effect of some of their actions can be. However, if, in the opinion of the Minister, the removal of the words ``or effect'' will just enlarge a loophole, it would be right to withdraw the amendment if it would just enlarge the loophole. When we come to clause 11, we shall be discussing more precisely the whole position of broadcasting, and that will be a tricky subject, and one difficult to manage. It might be better if we withdrew amendment No. 41 and had a more focused discussion on broadcasting methods later.

Humfrey Malins: Order. We are debating amendment No. 39.

Caroline Spelman: And amendment No. 41.

Humfrey Malins: Indeed, but amendment No. 39 is the lead amendment and that is the only one that may be withdrawn with leave of the Committee. Should that happen, the other would fall.

Caroline Spelman: Thank you for that correction, Mr. Malins. We shall leave discussion of amendment No. 41. I wish to place on the record that, as with the matter of internet service providers—this is a message to noble Members in another place as much as anything—with the time available to us, we remain unsure that the loopholes concerning sponsorship have been closed by the wording of the clause. They may wish to return to that matter. We accept that our amendments would not achieve our objective of trying to bring more precision to this clause and, for that reason, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Humfrey Malins: We now come to amendment No. 40.
Mr. Luff rose—

Caroline Spelman: I beg to move, amendment No. 40, in page 4, line 27, after first `contribution', insert `in the course of business'
 We missed our Whip this morning, and I got myself into some trouble, but now he is here. We are very glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) back this afternoon. Since anyone reading Hansard might be concerned for his health and welfare, I am pleased to record that he is back with us. 
 Amendment No. 40 deals with a slightly separate subject area. The prohibition of sponsorship agreements in clause 9 is not limited to activities that are carried out in the course of business. In that respect, it is unlike tobacco advertisements in clause 2 and free distributions in clause 8, which are limited to activities carried out in the course of business. Agreements that will have no commercial effect will be caught by the definition of the sponsorship agreement in clause 9(2). 
 Two scenarios illustrate the absurdity of the present provision. First, if a person agreed to contribute cigarettes or cigars for guests who were smokers at a local football club dinner, both contributor and host could be liable to prosecution. That is similar to the difficulties posed by the corporate entertaining examples that I would like the Minister to address. Secondly, if a private club organised a cigar tasting, all subscription-paying members of that club would be guilty of an offence under subsection (1). The clause can be clarified by inserting the words 
``in the course of business'', 
which would make it consistent with other parts of the Bill. The amendment is relatively straightforward, but is designed to make the Bill clearer and more workable.

Yvette Cooper: I accept the principle behind the amendment. At every stage, we have tried to distinguish between what an individual might do and what would be done in the course of a business. There is no intention to prosecute individuals who may choose to sponsor particular events. We have distinguished in the clause between what individuals do as a matter of choice, even if we may not like it, and what is done in the course of business. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment, so that we can consider what the exact wording should be to ensure that the clause complies with the intention of the rest of the Bill.

Caroline Spelman: That is very helpful. I will withdraw the amendment on the understanding that the Minister accepts the spirit in which it was made, and will find wording that reflects the distinction and makes the clause consistent with other parts of the Bill. That will be music to the ears of members of people from all parties, as individuals who have an interest in tobacco products. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Ian Bruce: The Government are in danger of creating a complication that they did not intend. There is an understanding that advertising is acceptable if wholesalers and manufacturers are advertising to sellers of tobacco. By not defining sponsorship, something that is considered to be promotion under clause 4 could also be caught as sponsorship. For example, it is not unusual for a tobacco company to have an after-dinner speaker, possibly a famous person, at a conference of its sales agents. That individual will be paid a sum of money that could certainly be regarded as sponsorship. Would it be an offence for an individual, as part of that sponsorship agreement, to give a speech helping to promote tobacco products to the retailers? That sort of marketing activity is widespread. Perhaps the Minister, in trying to help my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden to ensure that the activity concerned would have to be conducted in the course of business, would consider a different definition in clause 9, of who is being sold to, or for whom the sponsorship is designed.
 We should also refer to clause 18, which relates back to clause 9 for certain international events. It seems wholly illogical that tobacco promotion through sponsorship is to be allowed, for a period of time, if it is connected to an international event. Either we think it wrong to have sponsored events that deal with tobacco promotion, or we do not. The fact that the promotion is connected to an international sporting event should make no difference. 
 I can only assume that the Prime Minister, and his colleagues, having accepted £1 million from Bernie Ecclestone—even though they had to give it back—promised Mr. Ecclestone that they would continue to support him, and have stuck to that promise. That is one sort of definition of an honest politician—once bought, he stays bought. 
 I am worried about some things that may be excluded, but which we might think it good for tobacco companies to do. We should be telling tobacco companies that they are causing ill health and should be putting money into research to allow people to be cured, or creating a situation in which smoking tobacco would not be a health hazard. That sort of sponsorship activity would put the tobacco companies in a good light and would help them to improve their image. But it would also give them promotion, and is therefore banned by the clause. 
 Tobacco companies set up charitable foundations: it is good for their image. That is why companies whose first requirement is to make profits for their shareholders give money to charity. It may be that the tobacco industry is doing things that are good for the health of the nation, but which would be banned. We may be sending the message that the companies can, if they can get their advertising and promotion through the Bill's loopholes, do harm, but that the Government will make sure that anything positive that they might do is banned. Not only would the tobacco companies be clobbered, but so would the charities that would receive money in sponsorship deals to look into tobacco diseases. It is a horrible thought that a researcher receiving money from a charitable trust to examine how to do away with the harmful effects of tobacco might be caught by the Bill. 
 I have another, perhaps self-interested, point. Mine is very much a sailing constituency—a Royal Yachting Association centre of excellence is being set up in Portland. We organise many international sailing events. Volvo and BT are big sponsors, but the tobacco industry is also involved in sponsorship. It is extraordinary to think that we can tell tobacco companies that they can still sponsor events held in France, which are televised and reported, but that UK sport must have that business taken away and sent elsewhere. We need an even playing field. We need to ensure that sponsorship money is not spent elsewhere, so that it takes events away from the UK. The Government owe it to everyone, not just those who have paid £1 million—and got it back—to make sure that people are not disadvantaged simply because they want to do their work in the UK. 
 I want to put some dictionary definitions on the record, because the Minister keeps talking about them. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden was right; she turned to me when she smilingly sought sponsorship for her Bill, and I wrote back to her. I do not know whether I am on her list, because she was overwhelmed by colleagues who wanted to be sponsors of her Bill, and that is what sponsorship is about. 
 The first definition of ``sponsor'' in the compact Chambers Dictionary—I cannot carry a bigger one around with me—is: 
``one who gives his word that another will do something act in a certain way.'' 
The second definition is: 
``godfather or godmother.'' 
We had better make sure that we are not godfather or godmother to someone who is a smoker. A further definition is: 
``one who makes himself responsible for e.g. the introduction of a law.'' 
That, in fact, is the definition we had from the Minister. 
 It is only when we reach definition number four that we find what the Government are going for in the Bill. It is: 
``a business firm that pays for a radio or television programme and is allowed time to advertise''. 
The fifth definition is: 
``one who agrees to contribute towards the cost of an event etc. or to a charity if someone else performs some task.'' 
We understand that the final two definitions are those that the Government intend for the Bill, but I do not think they have defined their terms sufficiently clearly because the other three types of sponsorship might inadvertently be caught, and I know that the Government would not want that to happen.

Kevin Barron: I would like to try to answer the points that the hon. Member for South Dorset has just made about the dictionary definition of sponsorship. First, both he and the hon. Member for Meriden have said on this clause, as on many others, that there is a loophole. The hon. Member for South Dorset said that there was a complication that the Government did not perhaps intend. Given that the Conservatives declined to give the Bill a Second Reading, they should be quite happy with the Bill as presently constructed, because it would be ineffective if we believed what they say.
 On sponsorship, does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that the Bill is intended to stop sponsorship that relates to tobacco products? I would like turn to Silk Cut. The hon. Member for South Dorset said that there are no names on Silk Cut advertisements, just a large silk cloth on a stage, with a tear in it, and that we all know what that means. Let me refer again to the appendices in the Health Committee report on defining sponsorship of tobacco products. The report considered the links between sponsorship and advertising. As I said earlier, those links can become very blurred when we look around the issue. It is very difficult to define that in a Bill without making it a one-clause Bill that says, ``X promotes, advertises or sponsors tobacco products directly or indirectly''. Definition is very difficult. 
 Let me turn to how sponsorship is designed to direct the attitudes of young people, perhaps not necessarily toward a single product, but towards a brand of tobacco products. Some evidence in the Select Committee report was submitted by a company called M & C Saatchi, with which I think most of us are familiar. It related to what Silk Cut did in night clubs in the UK—the Leadmill in Sheffield was one such venue—a few years ago, and to what was being done in universities up and down the UK. The evidence relates to what I think was called the Silk Cut renaissance tour, and I want to quote from a brief published on 7 May 1996 on the sponsorship of those events. It said: 
 ``Silk Cut is actually a cool brand to be seen smoking because it is enabling more Renaissance club nights... Therefore the sponsorship advertising will need to communicate the relationship between Silk Cut and Renaissance by featuring the extensive list of gigs and by appealing to their self-image to give them some defensive ammunition.'' 
That is interesting, because it shows that tobacco companies target young people. 
 Young people, by their nature, are not easily taken for a ride. They do not easily latch on to things. The hon. Member for South Dorset mentioned billposter sites that do not even tell one what brand they refer to; but an image is shown, and an inquiring mind can work out what it is. Inquiring minds are likely to be younger rather than older. 
 Let me quote further from M & C Saatchi's evidence: 
 ``Urban Venturers: Aged between 18-30, students/graduates just out of university, short of money but spend all they have on good nights out. They are very advertising literate, and consequently very wary of big brands latching on to aspects of their lifestyle and exploiting them. To this end Silk Cut needs to complement the Renaissance imagery in an intriguing and stylish way.'' 
That shows how companies sponsor events. They do not put everything up front, but use images to promote their products without actually saying, ``Please smoke Silk Cut cigarettes; you are of an age when you ought to be doing that.'' At some events, free products are given out as well, so it is not always the case that there is no direct link with the product that the companies are promoting. That is just one case in which the sponsorship was directed at young people at gigs and events, and where that sponsorship complemented the advertising and vice versa. 
 The hon. Member for South Dorset talked about his windjammer—or whatever it was.

Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Kevin Barron: No. I will finish what I am saying and then the hon. Gentleman can get to his feet. Silk Cut sponsored a boat for the Whitbread yacht race, which had a Silk Cut emblem on it, and I can quote from a document that advertisers used, which states:
 ``Silk Cut is sponsoring a boat in the Whitbread yacht race and, therefore, is actually quite a masculine, adventurous brand.'' 
Again, that document refers to the promotion of the brand to people who watch racing. I do not think that racing is watched by young people in particular, but I am not sure. My constituency could not be further from the sea. We have some country parks with water sports, but there is not much in the way of Whitbread yacht racing in my area. 
 Let me turn to the Saatchi brief of 1996, which came to light during the investigations. It was headed ``Why we are advertising'' and said: 
 ``Silk Cut are sponsoring a boat, captained by Laurie Smith, in the next Whitbread Round the World yacht race. In order to get maximum publicity from this event they want to place `announcement' ads in all national newspapers that run editorial on the race—to appear next to, or near, the editorial.'' 
Again, we can see how sponsorship of an event can be promoted far more widely than the windjammer or the name on the side of a yacht. Events are promoted right into our national media so that Silk Cut can be linked with yacht racing. I do not know which newspapers have editorials on yacht racing—perhaps quite a few in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Dorset, but very few in mine. That is how sponsorship is used to advertise and promote a product.

Ian Bruce: The hon. Gentleman quotes some of the things that I said, but he has completely missed the point. I told the Committee that the voluntary agreement that Silk Cut had was in my view easier to police, because the company was policing itself.. Under the voluntary agreement, it was easier to keep that brand name off the television screens and to ensure that Silk Cut jackets were not available to the television cameras either.
 I do not dispute the fact that sponsorship by tobacco companies is intended to promote cigarettes. If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully to my previous speech, he would know that we were trying to achieve exactly the same type of prohibitions on advertising as on sponsorship. We should not get involved in a confusing discussion about the difference between the two, which again provides enormous loopholes.

Kevin Barron: I did not want to misunderstand the hon. Gentleman. I think that I know what he is saying now. Silk Cut was probably much better at screening as regards sponsorship and the national media than other companies have been.
 I take the hon. Gentleman back to the first sitting, when he said: 
 ``The great thing about a voluntary agreement, is that when one tobacco manufacturer finds a way round the agreement and decides to go off in a different direction, the Minister can pick up the phone, talk to the Tobacco Manufacturers Association and say that what the manufacturer is doing is harmful and the Government are worried.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 30 January 2001; c. 20.] 
I would much rather have the agreement in statute, which is what the Committee is about, so that a Minister does not have to pick up the phone when people breach codes that they have agreed in principle to stick to. That situation has gone on for many years, and it is about time that it ended, which is what the Bill is about. 
 My final point is also about the connection between sponsorship and advertising and/or promotion. When the Health Committee took evidence last year on the tobacco industry and the health risks of smoking, the advertising agency CDP—which is one of the top five advertisers in the country—submitted a memo dated 20 January 1998 from Barry Jenner to Rupert Pyrah. It talked about what had happened the night before, when Formula 1 racing cars had appeared on the news because a new racing car was being promoted. The small faxed memo says: 
 ``Barry, 
 As I'm sure you are aware there was excellent coverage of the new Jordan car last night on both the Nine O'Clock News and the News at Ten. The respective All Men TVRs— 
that must be industry jargon— 
for the bulletins were 11.8 and 14.4.'' 
I assume that that refers to the seconds during which the images were on the national news on our television screens. The memo goes on to say: 
 ``If we assume that the coverage equated to 60''— 
again, I think that that relates to the exposure time on television, with which I am not familiar; the hon. Gentleman can tell me about it in a few minutes— 
commercial on each station, I've estimated the equivalent advertising value to be £185,000. When the value of additional news spots on Channel 4, Channel 5 and Sky are added in, I expect the figure would exceed £250,000. 
 Not bad to start off with!'' 
That is a classic example. Sponsorship in the form of emblems and names on Formula 1 cars takes place not only when we are watching a Formula 1 race, but even when Formula 1 cars are launched and are in our national media. They are on the news. ``News at Ten'' does not exist any more—[Hon. Members: ``It is back'']. I do not have the precise ratings for ``News at Ten'' or the ``Nine O'Clock News'', but they are high. Buying time in them gives real added value, particularly on the BBC, which does not have adverts. We have clear evidence that the advertising agencies promoting such sponsorship know exactly how to get exposure for tobacco products. 
 The growth in tobacco sponsorship in Britain, particularly in sports, took off when we decided, many years ago, to stop advertising cigarettes on national television channels. Sport became the recipient of that sponsorship, whether it was a case of Benson and Hedges cricket or Formula 1 racing. That was another way of getting tobacco promoted in our national media. The Wilson Government, which came to office in 1964, introduced a voluntary code, but it soon became clear that people were getting round it. Companies decided that they had to accept the ban on television advertising, but looked for ways round it, as the hon. Member for South Dorset said at our first sitting. It is in the nature of tobacco companies to do whatever they can to keep their products in our minds.

Ian Bruce: I have been so impressed by the hon. Gentleman that I make him a pledge that when he calls for a vote against clause 18, which allows Formula 1 advertising to continue until 2006, I will support him—as he supported my early-day motion when I arrived in the House. I hope that I can rely on him to call for such a vote.

Kevin Barron: That is tempting, but I will leave clause 18 until we get to it. The only thing that I have to say to the hon. Gentleman is that the organisers of Formula 1 have said that they could bring an end to sponsorship more quickly. No amendments seem to have been tabled on that, otherwise we could have debated it. However, we will cross that bridge when we come to it.

Ian Bruce: Can I help?

Kevin Barron: No, I think that the hon. Gentleman has helped me enough.
 A few years ago, litigation against tobacco companies started to be successful, initially in the United States. We have become more concerned about tobacco promotion. Parliamentarians on the Select Committee considered a mass of evidence before producing the report last year. We can now see that people have for years been getting round the voluntary codes because they do not want to be restricted. If we were talking about food or some other product, people might say, ``There's no harm done, is there?'' However, we have to keep remembering that—difficult though it is for many people to accept—every day, 300 of our fellow citizens in this tiny country die early as a result of tobacco-related diseases. If we had been at war for the past 20 years and losing 300 people every day, there would be a lobby in this place and many others against it. By including sponsorship in the legislation, the Government are going some way towards stopping the promotion of tobacco products and preventing people getting round voluntary codes, as they have been doing for decades.

Yvette Cooper: The clause is extremely important. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley is right that sponsorship has been a way of increasing what is effectively advertising and promotion of tobacco products through what the tobacco companies clearly regard as a powerful way of communicating their message to smokers and potential smokers. Subsection (1) sets out that
 ``A person who is party to a sponsorship agreement is guilty of an offence if the purpose or effect of anything done as a result of the agreement is to promote a tobacco product'' 
and subsection (2) sets out a clear definition of a sponsorship agreement. The clause does not ban companies from making donations. It does not ban them from being good corporate citizens and donating money to charity or to events. It simply bans them from promoting tobacco products as a result. 
 The hon. Member for South Dorset gave the example of a tobacco company that wanted to donate to a charity in order to fund some health research. If a company wants to donate to a charity to promote health research, let it. However, we must be slightly cynical about its interest in research into, for example, a cure for lung cancer if the price of its donation towards research is the promotion of its tobacco products, which cause the disease. Such promotion and sponsorship should not be permitted under the Bill. 
 It is true that we cannot ban international sponsorship. However, we can and should work with our European partners to achieve a Europe-wide ban. We can also work with the World Health Organisation to try to reduce world-wide sponsorship, particularly of events. I think that we will have some opportunity to work with international partners and colleagues on that. It is reasonable to require UK sporting, artistic and other events to find other sources of sponsorship. 
 The Government set out their intention from the beginning in order to allow time for sports to find alternative sources of sponsorship. The bottom line remains that sponsorship of events for the sake of promoting tobacco products must stop because it is a powerful way of promoting tobacco products and smoking. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley is right. When the health consequences are 120,000 deaths each year, such a major form of advertising should be prevented. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 - Transitional Provisions: Sponsorship

The Chairman 
 : We have had a wide debate on sponsorship. I hope that the Committee will not indulge in repetition of the arguments, but will stick to the matter under discussion. Of course I will have to bear those matters in mind when I decide whether to allow a stand part debate.

Caroline Spelman: I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 9, line 19, leave out `a' and insert `the'.

Humfrey Malins: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 45, in page 9, line 20, leave out `a sponsorship agreement' and insert `to all sponsorship agreements'.

Caroline Spelman: I listened carefully to your advice, Mr. Malins. I held back in our debate on clause 9 from talking about different time periods for the application of sponsorship because they seemed to relate most directly to this clause. I would certainly like to discuss that matter under a stand part debate, if possible. Our debate on the clause has been brought forward in the order of consideration to follow the general discussion of sponsorship.
 The clause will enable regulations to be made to provide transitional arrangements and agreements for the phasing out of sponsorship. The Secretary of State said on Second Reading that the Government intended to implement a timetable for sponsorship that had previously been laid out in the European directive. Subsection (2) paves the way for that by saying that the date 
``may not be later than 1st October 2006.'' 
That is an innocuous little phrase. We know that the debate that rages surrounds the differential hidden behind that between the different sports. I would entirely support my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset in calling for a level playing field for these sports. I do not see why we should slavishly follow, as we were encouraged to do on Second Reading, the timetable laid out in the European directive. The whole logic behind having a differential agreement for different sports is shot through. To pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rother Valley, he convened a most interesting meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health, and received a presentation from Simon Rines of International Marketing Reports, who made a strong case for a level playing field.

Kevin Barron: The point that Simon Rines made to that Committee, if my memory serves me well, is that the deadline of 2006 should re-examined, not that everything should wait until 2006 to be finished. Is that correct?

Caroline Spelman: It may astonish the hon. Member to hear that I cannot see why that should not be possible. The preferential treatment given to Formula 1 under the transitional arrangements, made possible by the wording of the clause, is difficult to understand. Formula 1, of all sports, is clearly well placed to replace tobacco sponsorship. Indeed, that is already happening. So we are legislating for something that is happening quite naturally. Companies want to get out of tobacco sponsorship, and the ascendant companies that are starting to sponsor the sport are all from telecommunications, computers and the new emerging technologies.
 The trouble starts with the logic behind the differential arrangements that the clause permits. On Second Reading, the case was made strongly for sports such as darts, which will have greater difficulty in getting replacement sponsorship. I should like to encourage all hon. Members to move towards a level playing field, for which strong arguments have been put forward. It is not necessary to differentiate under the transitional provisions between so-called global sports. Perhaps the Minister will clarify whether snooker is now regarded as a global sport. It enjoys an audience of 10 million adults and is watched in 150 countries. It may not have the same glamour as Formula 1, and is hence less sought after as a target for sports advertisements, but it is difficult to see why snooker should have preferential treatment but darts should not. 
 The amendments may not be worded in a way that would achieve that end, but they raise a strong objection with the Government for the lack of a level playing field. We are effectively free to legislate as we wish, since the European directive was brought forward on the wrong basis and annulled. Why must we pursue this preferential treatment for Formula 1? If I were in the Government's position, I would be embarrassed that preference has been given to that sport and about all the publicity concerning the donations that were received and then returned. That was doubtless effective from Formula 1's perspective, as it appears to have bought the preferential treatment without having to spend money. The situation is unsatisfactory, and the public and the advocates of different sports find it difficult to understand. 
 It appears, from the way that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have articulated their surprise about those arrangements, that there may be a lot of cross-party support for changing the scope for those differential arrangements under clause 18. After seeing the strength of support in Committee for creating a level playing field, the Minister may want to give some thought to revising the Bill on that point on Report. 
 The point behind our second amendment is that there should be a decision to include all sponsorship agreements rather than a particular sponsorship agreement. That is perhaps an imperfect way to get to the point where all sponsorship agreements are treated fairly and in the same way. Preference should not be given to those best placed to seek alternative sources of funding. 
 Tobacco sponsorship accounts for only 5 per cent. of all European sports sponsorship. It is not as big a player as we have all been led to believe. Significant sums are involved in the sponsorships—£177 million for Formula 1 compared with £9 million for snooker. Darts and some lesser sports do not reach even £1 million.

Ian Bruce: Is it not extraordinary that, where sponsorship has a real impact on tobacco consumption, the Government are granting further time before a ban, yet where it does not much affect people's consumption, the ban is to be instant? That is so illogical.

Caroline Spelman: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I simply cannot understand such illogicality, and it leads me strongly to oppose the Bill. To treat particular sport sponsors preferentially and single out one sponsorship agreement to be dealt with transitionally in a different way is to conform ourselves to what might have been in Europe. Perhaps we should start conforming to what is happening in the marketplace now.
 Some of the big players in Formula 1 no longer want tobacco sponsorship. The Williams Formula 1 team refused the Rothmans sponsorship and turned to Compaq. Ford also said no to Formula 1 sponsorship. The beginning of an important trend is happening in the real world, which is different from a notional European directive reappearing in a different guise at some indeterminate point in future. It is difficult to accept preferential treatment for one particular sport. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) made a perceptive point. The main purpose of the Bill, with which we entirely agree, is to reduce the prevalence of smoking, but how effective will it be? As my hon. Friend said, it is difficult to understand how the increased prevalence of smoking among young women will be affected by the sponsorship of darts, for example. There is a disconnect, which makes one wonder why darts should be treated more severely than more glamorous sports with a wider appeal across the sexes such as Formula 1. The argument is tenuous and creating a level playing field for all sponsorship agreements would improve the Bill. It would be easier to understand and would more effectively address the Government's declared objective of removing from advertising those elements shown by market research to have a significant impact on smoking prevalence. 
 At a meeting of the all-party group, the market research was spelt out clearly—there is image transfer from glamorous sports to tobacco products. As a result of advertising in Formula 1, tobacco is seen as glamorous, exciting, making one ``youthful'', ``adventurous'' and ``sophisticated''—words used by consumers affected by that advertising. That is a factual description of the impact of sponsorship agreements and it makes it difficult to understand why Formula 1 should be accorded preferential treatment. 
 I hope that I have made a strong case and that Labour Back Benchers, who are susceptible to calls for a level playing field, might consider supporting us over this matter. Maybe together we could persuade the Minister to revisit this on Report. 
 I find it difficult to see the justification for treating one sport—or if snooker is caught into it, two—in a preferential way, given the impact that those sports have, as established by market research, on advertising of tobacco products.

Kevin Barron: The hon. Member for Meriden said that we have to recognise what is happening in the marketplace. She also quite rightly said that the all-party group saw in graphic detail that Formula 1 is shedding tobacco sponsorship and that telecommunications and computers were the highest growth areas. That is not happening because they want to do it; it is happening because there has been an international debate for many years about the effect of tobacco sponsorship on Formula 1, the growth of sponsorship and the amount of time that it is on our television screens. Nobody sits down for a few minutes of a Formula 1 event. Although people rarely watch it all, we are not talking about the 90 minutes of a football match. The viewer is there for a long time. There are a lot of images flying around on the trackside and on the cars; there is a massive exposure of images.
 Many years ago, when we were in opposition, I was involved in some of the negotiations about how to overcome the problem, not of sports sponsorship here at home but of sports sponsorship of international events. There is one example, possibly two, of what could be called international events. The obvious one, because of the amount of money that the tobacco companies put into it, is Formula 1 racing. I do not think anything would have changed in the marketplace with Formula 1 racing if it were not for the intention, initially of the EU, and after we were elected in 1997, of the Government, to remove the block on the EU directive that the governing Conservative party had had on for many years. 
Mrs. Spelman indicated dissent.

Kevin Barron: It is well documented—I have the lead Cabinet minutes in front of me if we want to debate that issue—and it was clear that the Conservatives were not going to lift that block. In turn, during the 1992 general election campaign, the Conservative party made a successful deal to rent bill poster sites—again, I have the evidence, which was well documented in debates—because they had the block on the European directive aimed at tackling this issue from the public health angle.
 I have to say to the hon. Lady that the marketplace has been shaped over many years by discussion and debate. It was thoroughly shaped on 1 May 1997 when we came into office with such a large majority. Eventually it moved and the only way around that was to scurry off into the European courts, as tobacco companies did, looking for another way to try to stop this move. That is the true marketplace. It is true that Formula 1 is an international sport and hon. Lady said earlier—[Interruption.]

Ian Bruce: It is Bernie paging.

Kevin Barron: He would not be on my pager. The hon. Lady said earlier that we were going to take this action independently. I must tell her that some, but not all, countries limit tobacco promotions when there is Formula 1 racing in their countries. With the aim of getting international agreement, it was suggested that names would be taken off, and just the logos and colours used. On that basis, it was always going to be treated differently to our own indigenous sponsorship agreements. No matter what people think about when this is going to end, it is going to end and that ending is in sight. When I was promoting a Bill under the private Bill procedure in the 1993-94 Session, that seemed decades away, especially given the amount of opposition that we had.

Caroline Spelman: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has given way because I want to return to the blocking minority on the directive. As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware, the mechanics of European voting mean that one member state cannot unilaterally pull off a blocking minority vote. There has to have been an alliance and, for the record, the German Government at that time was also part of that blocking minority. I should like to know whether the hon. Gentleman would be prepared to press his Government to seek an alliance in Europe for a level playing field on these sponsorship agreement, quite possibly bringing forward the date, as I believe that he is in favour of that. Alliances have to be struck to bring about change.

Kevin Barron: The only thing wrong with that is that one of the reasons why the European directive failed in the European Court was that it was said that some tobacco advertising issues were distinctly to do with the member state and not with a wider European issue. Public health is a wider European issue. I did not see the full judgement but I have seen it in different parts and one of the points was that, in most instances, tobacco advertising is peculiar to member states and therefore the directive could not be introduced. We have to recognise that.

Ian Bruce: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman giving the example of the Conservative party unilaterally stopping tobacco advertising on all those hoardings during the election campaign by putting up Conservative posters. That was a good idea.
 The hon. Gentleman is an honest man, and I am sure that he will give us an honest answer to this question. What did he think of the decisions by the Government—the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and all those people who were in with Bernie Ecclestone—announcing that they would give Formula 1 many years of continuing sponsorship?

Kevin Barron: I shall not go into detail, but I was a shadow public health spokesman when we were in opposition and I spoke in Strasbourg in 1996. I was effectively looking after tobacco policy for the Labour party at that time and that question was asked of me then. It was an inter-group forum in Strasbourg. My immediate reaction, which was minuted, was that it would have to be dealt with differently because of the nature of Formula 1 racing.
 At one level, the issue before us is whether Formula 1 should be allowed to go to the year 2006 while other sports are not. In part, the answer to the Conservative Members is that it might be up to them. They have tabled an amendment that seeks to take everything up to 2006. They may be sad to hear it, but I tell them I cannot support an amendment that would take everything up to 2006. The hon. Member for Meriden heard the debate in the all-party group when it discussed that matter, and has not tabled an amendment that might have tempted me. I only say ``might have tempted me'' because I do not look at any one thing in isolation. When I look at legislation, I look at the full picture. 
 Without question, Formula 1 gets a lot of money from the tobacco companies and is getting that replaced quite quickly. Then we dive down in terms of annual figures. Although I do not have them in front of me, the hon. Lady read them out. I think the next one was snooker at £9 million, then a lot of others at a lot less. I am tempted to ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether she agrees with this. Perhaps she will not, but I will try when she has finished talking to the Whip. 
 The banning of sponsorship is not unknown in other countries. Indeed it was banned it, I think, Western Australia. However, at the same time, the state government came up with something that I thought very innovative. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on this. They decided to convert the tobacco taxes in that state and give them to an arm's-length agency that could sponsor, or re-sponsor, sports and other events. Instead of young children being involved in sports sponsored by tobacco companies, they were involved is sports sponsored by public health lobbying organisations, such as ``Healthy Eating''. 
 There are many other smaller sponsorship deals, when we go below the line of snooker. For a tiny fraction of the amount that tobacco taxes bring into the Exchequer, the Government could consider replacing some of these smaller sponsorships to support, for example, fishing or dancing, with pro-health sponsorship —as opposed to anti-health sponsorship, in terms of tobacco. I realise that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot commit herself, or the Government, to such a thing, but it is an issue that we need to look at. It is not necessarily the case that sports, or other activities that are being sponsored by tobacco companies, would lose out. 
 I know my last point may be going a bit wide, Mr. Malins, but I will not participate in the clause stand part debate. I cannot tell the Committee what my wife calls me, so I shall just call myself local football supporter. I have been going mainly to my own club—Millmoor, Rotherham United football ground—for 40 years now. I have also been to most other grounds, including quite a few Premier league grounds, and the one thing that has struck me about sport sponsorship in the past decade is the massive change that there has been in football—our national sport—in terms of bringing in the Premier league, of salaries, and of everything else. Yet in no area of football can advertising by cigarette companies be seen. 
 Football is on our televisions on Saturday nights, Sunday mornings, it is on Sky most days of the week—which my wife hates. Here is a prime example of how tobacco companies could have had sports coverage—possibly even better than Formula 1—but the Football Association decided that tobacco products were not the right image that they wanted. Unannounced, without making a big deal of it, the Football Association decided not to get involved in that side of sponsorship. 
 Many other organisations, especially ones that take care of amateur sports, have nothing to do with tobacco advertising, because the industry is anti what most sports and activities are about. That is the truth of the matter, because no matter how they are defined, they are ill-health products. Under those circumstances, the Government ought to be considering other alternatives. When the legislation is in force, and sports organisations are under pressure because they cannot get the odd £1,000 or £500,000 in sponsorship, we—as parliamentarians—should be arguing that some of the billions of pounds of tobacco taxes earned by the Exchequer annually should be used to promote pro-health sponsorship among organisations for young children and others.

Ian Bruce: We are hearing interesting points on both sides of the debate. The clause is unsatisfactory, and that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden tabled the amendments. It would be difficult for everyone on the Committee to agree with her on achieving an even playing field, as some might feel that doing so would simply prolong the time in which sponsorship could continue. If we did intend to prolong censorship, it would be sensible for each case to be considered by the Minister, but I do not think that my hon. Friend will win support for that premise, and I encourage her to withdraw her amendment so that the Committee can simply vote on whether clause 18 should stand part.
 The Government have heard many opinions, particularly those of the hon. Member for Rother Valley, who makes such a strong case. He declares in the Member's Register of interests that he has been to Formula 1. He was sponsored by a drinks company and was obviously affected by seeing ``buzzing hornets'' and British American Racing pretending not to be tobacco companies. The hon. Gentleman will have been surprised by the switch in Labour party policy, and if he joins us to vote down clause and to give us cross-party support—the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives are on board—we could make the Government write another clause that could receive universal support from all parts of the Labour party.

Kevin Barron: The hon. Gentleman has very observant in spotting my attendance at Formula 1. A friend of mine was running the brewery that won the contract for Foster's lager in this country, and some people were coming from Australia to Silverstone. Bernie Ecclestone was supposed to be having lunch in our tent, but he did not turn up, which was a great disappointment to me, as we had arranged a photo-shoot.

Ian Bruce: For once, I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. I was not suggesting for one moment that I would not take up the invitation if Foster's invited me to visit Formula 1. Members of Parliament have to understand what is going on, and we cannot do that without visiting events.
 I would like the Minister to respond on one point. Voluntary agreements exist on what can appear on Formula 1 cars, and, in the United Kingdom, all the cars are painted with buzzing hornets. Since I am not a tobacco smoker, it took me a long time to work out that that meant Benson and Hedges. Apparently, that was the brand that Benson and Hedges put on the side of the vehicle. Will the Minister say what sort of thing might be allowed, and whether the clause would give companies an open season for the six years in which they may still advertise their products when they sponsor Formula 1 and other such sports?

Yvette Cooper: It is already 6.30 pm, and we had hoped to make considerable progress this afternoon. We still have half an hour, and may still make considerable progress, but Labour Members are happy to continue beyond 7 pm, or to return later this evening if the Opposition agree. I know that the hon. Member for Meriden has an engagement, and we would be happy to recognise that, as she was very understanding about my earlier engagement.
 I want to respond to some of the issues that have been raised during this debate and want to turn to some stand part issues too.

Humfrey Malins: Order. Perhaps I can indicate to the Minister and to the Committee that I think that we have had a very wide-ranging debate on the amendments, and I propose to put the clause stand part question without debate when the time arrives.

Yvette Cooper: Thank you, Mr. Malins, for that extremely helpful guidance.
 The clause sets out the power to make regulations to do with the time scale for implementing the ban on tobacco sponsorship. There will be time for consultation on those regulations, and for hon. Members, the organisers of sporting events or anyone involved in sponsorship to raise particular issues, concerns or interests about the regulations. We shall certainly listen to all representations, and that will provide an appropriate forum in which to discuss in great detail the appropriate time scale for introducing the sponsorship ban. 
 My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading that it remained our intention to implement the policy and the timetable on sponsorship that had been agreed with our European partners in 1998 and subject to consultation that means that UK sports and events will have until July 2003 to find alternative sponsorship and that global sporting events will have until October 2006 to do the same, provided first that they do not sign new contracts with tobacco companies and secondly, that they phase out the current sponsorship that they receive. My right hon. Friend also set out our intention to publish draft regulations for consultation during the course of the Bill, which we hope to do as soon as possible. 
 That policy was agreed with our European partners, and we are keen to consult them on the timing of the regulations and the ban. We are keen to work with them on proposals to reintroduce a Europe-wide ban on tobacco sponsorship and advertising. The distinction between global and UK sporting events was set out several years ago. The bottom line is that sponsorship will be banned, and that is right. In clause 18, we set out a final date—1 October 2006—by which sponsorship should be banned, which is exactly in line with the directive agreed with our European partners. 
 We want to go further and to draw up worldwide agreements on tobacco sponsorship. We want to agree Europe-wide bans on tobacco sponsorship. We are keen to do that in collaboration with our European partners and with WHO. I hope that there is scope to do that and to make considerable progress. It is worth noting that the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile has said that it is keen to introduce a worldwide ban on tobacco sponsorship from 2006. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley is absolutely right to say that would not have happened if it had not been for discussions at European level and through WHO and the extreme pressure now felt in many countries to get rid of tobacco sponsorship and tobacco advertising for the sake of public health. 
 This is an important clause. We need to set out a timetable. We will do so through proper consultation on the regulations, and will listen at that time to any representations that are made. It is right that we should have the flexibility to respond to the consultation process and to any issues that may be raised then. I urge the Committee to reject the amendment and to agree that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

Caroline Spelman: Following the good advice of my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset, I shall withdraw my amendment, but I should like to press the clause to a vote. I should like to gauge the support for seeking a level playing field and giving the Government a chance to reconsider.

Kevin Barron: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Spelman: In the interests of time, I will not. The hon. Gentleman made a long and interesting speech on this subject. I have made my position clear.
Mr. Barron rose—

Humfrey Malins: Order. Has the hon. Lady given way?

Caroline Spelman: I had sat down. Could you guide me, Mr. Malins, on whether the hon. Gentleman can intervene?

Humfrey Malins: It is a matter of discretion for the Chair. It might be more convenient if the hon. Lady treated this is as an intervention.

Caroline Spelman: I accept that guidance and give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Kevin Barron: In withdrawing the amendment, is the hon. Lady giving notice that she will table an amendment that includes a date earlier than 2006?

Caroline Spelman: There is still time to table amendments on Report. I would be guided in making such a decision by the level of support that an amendment might receive from the Committee. If the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) would return and reveal his voting intentions, there could be seven apiece. For once in this Parliament, we could produce a very interesting voting result, despite the Government's big majority. The level of support will guide my decision on what amendments to table on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 - Brandsharing

Caroline Spelman: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 4, line 44, leave out from `name' to `which' in line 46 and insert
`or emblem which is identical in appearance to a name or emblem'.

Humfrey Malins: With this we may discuss amendment No. 15, in page 5, line 1, leave out from `name' to `which' in line 4 and insert
`or emblem which is identical in appearance to a name or emblem'.

Caroline Spelman: We want to make progress, but brand sharing is important and we must be careful to give it the right amount of time in debate. I heard what the Minister said about continuing tonight, but that places me in a slightly difficult position, as I intended to attend a cross-party event at 7 pm involving the Minister for Women and the respective parties' spokesmen for women. [Interruption.]

Humfrey Malins: Order. The Committee is becoming a little noisy.

Caroline Spelman: Thank you, Mr. Malins.
 Under the Bill, tobacco companies that have diversified into other areas will be penalised for using their brand name on products completely unrelated to their tobacco products, even if the logo is completely different from that used on the tobacco products. It is beneficial to all employed in the tobacco industry if those companies diversify to protect jobs. 
 It is difficult to understand why the Government object so strongly to tobacco companies diversifying into other areas. I would far rather that the companies produced another product, such as petrol or something that posed a lesser risk to public health. To shut the companies down completely with no alternative outlet would be a hard measure to impose on them. We need to find ways of encouraging the firms to move into other areas if possible, and not to penalise them for doing so. 
 However, certain companies will be caught by the brand sharing measure and innocent parties will be bound by the constraints of clause 10. I provided a good example on Second Reading—the Minister is familiar with it, but I shall repeat it to the Committee to demonstrate the problems that might arise—of a company that markets clothing and luggage under the Camel brand. It is separate from any tobacco manufacturing company and produces goods that could not possibly be described as tobacco-based products or accessories, such as boots, shoes and suitcases. 
 Originally, the company adopted the Camel logo that is traditionally associated with that brand of cigarettes. It is an international company that is based in Germany and the United Kingdom. In order to comply with the relevant European directive, it completely changed its logo and renamed its products Camel Active. The style of writing of the Camel name was completely different from the logo on a packet of cigarettes and the company continued to sell entirely tobacco-free products. The company is worried that it might still be caught by the Bill, so it has asked me to bring its concern to the Committee's attention. It might be an innocent victim, subjected to the clause's brand sharing restrictions. 
 It is interesting to reflect on the advice that was given on brand sharing when the European directive was annulled. I have a copy of a letter from the company— Worldwide Brands—which has been in close contact with the Advocate General who was instrumental in the decision to annul the European directive. As we all know, it was decided that the measure had been introduced on the wrong legislative basis. On brand sharing, the Advocate General held that 
``the Directive's provisions on brand diversification advertising in no way contribute to the removal of trade barriers affecting brand diversification products.'' 
He was not minded to restrict brand diversification on internal market grounds. He concluded that 
``since the Directive would not be an effective means of reaching its stated Internal Market goals, it was not proportionate to these goals and thus infringed the proportionality principle, the EC Treaty provisions on the free movement of goods and the basic rights to property and to pursue an economic activity.'' 
Brand sharing was not to be treated as harshly under the proposed European directive as it is under the Bill. Furthermore, the Advocate General held that 
``the restrictions on brand diversification advertising violated the right to freedom of speech, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights... the Community legislator had not presented any evidence to suggest a link between brand diversification advertising and overall tobacco consumption... there were therefore no reasonable grounds to justify the restrictions on freedom of speech provided for in the Directive. 
That interesting information about the European directive is relevant to our debate on brand sharing. Clause 10 does not provide an adequate solution for companies such as Worldwide Brands, which through its best endeavours has tried to break free of the accusation that when people buy boots and shoes with the Camel Active logo, that somehow fuels tobacco consumption and increases smoking prevalence.

Ernie Ross: I have listened to the h Lady with interest. Does she know why the company originally chose the name Camel? If it chose the name because it is that of a well-known cigarette brand—even though it was used to market another product—and had enjoyed many years of sales based on that link, however tenuous, the company can hardly expect us not to say that it has had its good years but now we want to get rid of tobacco advertising and association with tobacco products.

Caroline Spelman: I do not know the precise reasons for the company's choice of the Camel logo. We have to legislate for here and now and it is unreasonable to visit the sins of the father on the grandchild—especially when the company has made such a great effort to move away from an emblem that mirrors that on the cigarette packet. The present logo in no way resembles the cigarette brand logo and we should recognise the company's endeavours to tackle genuine concerns that young people might buy its clothing because they have in the back of their minds the connection with an attractive cigarette brand.

Ernie Ross: I drink Guinness. The company that produces and promotes Guinness is called Diageo. There could not be two more dissimilar words; indeed, there was a big debate about what Diageo meant. However, that does not stop me or other people drinking Guinness. The company does not have much of a leg to stand on.

Caroline Spelman: I suspect that the basic principle to which the hon. Gentleman refers comes under competition law—which is outside my sphere of competence. The question of whether start-up companies with logos similar to that of the original bearer of a logo can be perceived as having infringed on the market share of the original company is probably more accurately dealt with in the context of competition law.
 The amendment deals with the need to recognise the efforts of a company that distances itself from an emblem that clearly and identifiably resembles—or replicates—a cigarette brand logo. The company that we are debating has been in discussion with the Government and was actively encouraged to draft amendments to deal with its dilemma. There are no Government amendments to the clause—although some may be in the pipeline—and we do not seem to be addressing the problem. Does the Minister intend to bring forward proposals to deal with difficulties such as those faced by Worldwide Brands?

Yvette Cooper: The clause provides regulation-making powers on brand sharing. We intend to consult on the detail of the regulations because we recognise that complex issues are involved.
 As I said on Second Reading, the regulations do not aim to undermine genuine business diversification. If tobacco companies wish to diversify into clothing or any other trade and if they adopt completely separate branding and their intention is not to promote a tobacco product, such diversification would be welcomed, but we do not want to permit tobacco companies to move into alternative products and alternative uses of their brand that clearly aim to promote tobacco products. 
 A couple of documents that were extracted from the tobacco companies by the Health Committee show how the tobacco industry tries to get around rules that are designed to control it. The first said: 
 ``If we feel we can legally say the words a `Special F1'''— 
as in special filter— 
``we can get a little close to more overtly implying the brand on the car''. 
The second document said: 
 ``We wonder if you could slightly corrupt the Jordan logo to include a large ampersand''— 
as in Benson & Hedges— 
``. . . the ampersand is not actually part of your logo though if it were to appear I believe people would recognise it as being so.'' 
Those two examples demonstrate how it would not be acceptable under the aims of the Bill to allow companies to use brands or logos that are not identical to the tobacco product brand, but are similar and have the same effect of promoting a tobacco product or brand. The amendment would allow Marlboro to promote Marlborough Classic Clothing where it simply adds the letters ``ugh'' to the name. The brand is still recognisably the same. Alternatively, it would allow a tobacco company to acquire Tommy Hilfiger clothing and then to introduce a Tommy H brand of cigarettes, which would clearly draw on the power of the Tommy Hilfiger brand to promote cigarettes. 
 We cannot therefore accept an amendment that would narrow the clause to simply refer to branding that is identical to that used by tobacco companies. There is clearly a distinction between brands that are separate and are not used to promote a tobacco product. We have no intention of including separate and distinct branding in the regulations. That is why we will consult in detail. We will allow companies to make representations to ensure that legitimate business diversification is encouraged under the Bill, but we cannot accept the word ``identical''.

Peter Luff: On consultation, I understand the Minister's objectives, which are honourable and noble in the context of the Bill. However, she is exploring a difficult area in which many value judgments will be required. I once advised the Alfred Dunhill luxury goods company, which did not deal with the tobacco end of the business. There is huge room for debate about where the promotion lies. I hope that the consultation will be genuine, thorough and unrushed. It is important for genuine businesses such as the Alfred Dunhill luxury goods company not to be caught up by over-rushed regulations.

Yvette Cooper: We certainly recognise the need for proper and thorough consultation. We are also keen to consult with the European Commission on its proposals. We recognise that this is a complex area, and we are keen to have a thorough and effective consultation process, but equally we do not want to allow a massive loophole into the Bill that would permit all sorts of products that are just slightly different from the original brand to be used to promote tobacco products.

Caroline Spelman: I cannot help feeling that we are putting the cart before the horse here. Surely this massive consultation exercise should have taken place before the Bill reached Committee. I feel uneasy about letting through the clause without registering my objections. It is unnecessarily restrictive. We have been promised a big consultation exercise. However, that company has made an effort—no doubt it spent a great deal of money on completely changing its logo—that could prove to be of no avail.
 I would be dissatisfied to let things stand. I have no desire to create a massive loophole that will allow through products that will increase smoking prevalence, but the fact that tobacco companies diversify into other markets, such as clothing, does not automatically lead to people smoking more cigarettes. There is not a tight correlation between the two. I would certainly like to encourage tobacco companies to diversify. I would far rather they produced something else, rather than tobacco that is associated with public health risks. 
 The Minister has put me in a difficult predicament because I will not know the outcome of her big consultation process in time to inform my decision on whether to let this clause through unamended. That decision has to be made now. I need to find some way of signalling to those who will consider the Bill in another place my concerns about this and one or two other clauses.

Yvette Cooper: I should inform the hon. Lady that Parliament will have the opportunity to discuss the regulations as they will be laid through the affirmative procedure.

Caroline Spelman: I accept that we shall have the chance to debate them, but if the Government have anything like their current majority, we will not be able to alter them effectively. My best course of action is to press amendment No. 14 to a Division, to signal my concern about this clause.
 Question put, That the amendment be made—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill

Ian Bruce: This will be a 30-second speech. I understand that the Whips want us to finish by 7 o'clock.
 We are in great difficulty because we have not seen the regulations, which really should have been produced in draft form for the Committee. Here is a branded packet of cigarettes with the House of Commons logo. We promote tobacco in the House of Commons using our brand. It is so important that we get this right and I want to signal that to allow the provision through without having seen the regulations is a travesty. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mrs. McGuire.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at Seven o'clock till Thursday 8 February at Nine o'clock.